Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 7
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 4
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 38
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
level that he had been waterboarded. he had practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. but when he referred to containment on iran rather than prevention of nuclear weapons and had to be corrected and then corrected again, a note was passed to him, and then the chairman helpfully said to him, containment is not a policy at all. that is not our policy. that is such a critical mistake on an issue that he knew that he was going to be asked about. we knew that he was going to have to explain the, quote, jewish lobby and take that back and some of the other things. the way he did it didn't seem crisp. and then when ted cruz wheeled in the tv screen to play an al jazeera talk show and put him on the spot or how he defended israel or didn't defend israel in response to a question on a talk show, it would be like somebody saying to you or mika, joe, you were on c-span ten years ago, and what did you say to someone who called in? that was very, very tough. >> that was sort of my point at the top. >> it's interesting that you had said, mika, yesterday as we were going to a meeti
? >> at the pentagon. >> this is the first time hearing of this. when did this happen? did they make this decision on the cruise ship? >> no. no, they didn't. it actually happened in washington. >> really? that's fascinating. >> which is its own permanent port-a-potty. >> okay. mika, for those of us that were just sitting there looking at a cruise ship for 24 hours instead of following the real news, why don't you catch us up with what actually happened yesterday in the news. >> republicans blocked a vote yesterday that would have ended the debate and allowed for a final decision one way or another. democrats fell just shy of the votes needed to advance the process. something president obama chalked up to partisan politics. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says that somebody should get 60 votes. there are only a handful of instances in which there's been any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and what seems to be happening -- and this has been growing over time -- is the republican minority in the senate seem to think that the rule now is that you have
of the events of the events in benghazi. there were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defense's response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. during these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. i hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. since september, there's been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played -- play in many u.s. diplomatic missions abroad. the marine corps did not have an lament in again-- in benghazi. the committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. our fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the marine security guard program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. more immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of ma
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
structures inside the pentagon? >> well, the first impression was not positive, because of the -- as a result of the hearings, chris, no doubt about that and it is imperative for the new defense secretary. he will be confirmed. his first public outing or two it will be important to project the command, gravitas, thoroughly briefed, in charge of the facts, to dispel the original im protection creapres after that, it will be to surround himself with a strong management team. it is a big management responsibility, at the pentagon and they'll go through changes and fiscal challenges, without the sequester, and, so ultimately the proof in the pudding will be in how he performs as defense secretary and if he comes out of the blocks as a veteran professional, it is not a big deal and he can put it behind him. >> chris: bill one way the white house is trying to clear the path for two nominees, hagel at defense and brennan at cia, is that they have kind of grudgingly been dragged out, have agreed to release some of the e-mails that chart how the talking points were developed after the benghazi terror
, a member of the bush pentagon's defense policy board, michael hastings author of the new digital book "panic 2012, the sublime and terrifying inside story of obama's final campaign ♪ ♪ barbara siegel, also washington correspondent for the middle east website al monitor.com. great to have you all here. >> thank you. >> so i am -- well, where to start? i think the lessons unlearned to me was the most troubling. it seemed to me we had a moment in 2008 particularly in which president obama articulated this kind of alternative foreign policy vision and did so quite forthrightly. for instance, negotiations with iran and ahmadinejad. and somehow four years later, we've moved backwards, right? the old -- i guess as we've gotten further away from the debacle of iraq, as that's more remote in people's memory, there's more and more the sense of iraq ended up okay and you saw this -- i thought it was so interesting, it was the relitigation of the surge. because that in some ways is this key narrative plot point that somehow redeem tess entire war. and so you saw, for instance, john mccain, in
that americans are com play september about defense cuts and cutting the pentagon. does that make it harder to sway republicans? >> i would point you to what republicans have said about sequester on national security and on our defense readiness. it is a fact that it affects deployment, it affects -- it would have negative impacts on army readiness, it imposes cuts to air force flying hours. i think that is a concern to all americans who worry about our national defense. but it would also, again, result in 0,000 kids getting kicked off of head start. it would rezurlt to cuts in mental health services to children. it would have cuts to teachers and to mental health care. that is to just name a few. to the jobs of first responders and others who would be affected by this. the reason why the list is so long because the sequester was written to be broad and, therefore, not to become policy. we call on congress to take reasonable and appropriate action, to pass legislation that would buy down the sequester, postpone the sequester with a package of spending cuts and revenue increase. we're makin
return home, and i admit that when we first asked him to lead the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty, that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents and opening their homes up to gi's added to the pacific, perhaps leon served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense and every action beyond panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affi
when he talks. apparently brennan wants to put them under pentagon control. who knows if that is true but there are three things i was shocked the democrats didn't bring up. and it's three questions that every president obama ditto head has to respond to. i don't like criticizing this but let's be honestly about a couple of things. number 1, the word imminent how that no longer means imminent and it means we think you might do something 20s years from now and that makes you an imminent threat and we have to kill you with with no trial. no. 2 is militant. any male over the age of 16 whose near where one of these bombs goes off is counted as a militant whether they were or not. toe try to talk al-qaeda guys. >> that's how they keep the civilian death tolls low. it's a dirt dirty business. number 3, blowback, what no democrat asked about is every time we kill an america hater with one of these things we are creating untold numbers of new. so it's person pet y'all war. >> i would add a high informed -- highly placed. we don't know who that i
. the abuse and waste and the fraud is astoppedding. i think the pentagon needs to be paired down. we need the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for time so i would, if i could, have the joint chiefs go down the line, quickly, if you can answer with yes or no, whether you agree with the general characterization that the senator made. that'd be great. [laughter] >> let me try it. it's a good question. it's a fair question. i don't -- i can't speak for senator hagel, but my interpretation of that is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say which was that we had accumulated over the decade post-9/11 when our budget was just kept going up over year, and i said this in lo gist ticks. when the budget goes up year in and year out, it's fair to say that when you had a management problem, all of our managers, they -- it was easy to reach for more money to solve your managing problem, whether it's a technical program or problem or something like that. it was noticeable as secretary in logistics that in some places that having had accumulated ov
at the pentagon and military readiness and what that will mean. >> he is at the pentagon now moments away from being sworn in. it could be kathleen seb i will sibilius. chuck hagel has my money. i will be there. if it's not chuck hagel, i will walk out. >> in protest? >> yeah. we wanted hagel. what's going on? >> quick story, public policy poling who we know ppp polled. they did a very, very important study, bill. they polled democrats and republicans to find out who their favorite fried chicken restaurant was. and they put it up against kfc. >> yeah. >> and chick-fil-a. >> popeye's. >> they just put it betweenthies two. i am with you. i say popeye's. popeye's keeps it real but kfc and democrats. democrats perform kfc while 48% of republicans chose chick-fil-a. >> of course. they are homophobic anti-marriage equality. >> exactly. what i found even more interesting out of this pole pole se /* /* poll, 43% of republicans say the nasty it al y'all food restaurant is quote a quality source of authenticethnic food. 43% of republicans say olive guardn is a quali
kill tv, jay johnson, a pentagon stop lawyer admitted, quote, if i were catholic i'd have to go to confession, unquote. mr. petraeus' departure presents mr. obama with an opportunity to halt the c.i.a.'s drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. for all the technological advances america's made in the decade of fighting al qaeda, it still needs all the old tricks it learned in the day before spy satellites and droughns drones. more and better human intelligence in sources on the ground will result in more accurate targeting. that would be a yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and more effective counterterrorism legacy for mr. obama's second term. gregory johnson from "the new york times." another good article by patrick pool on june 6 of 2012. obama's assassination czar, a relatively unnoticed article, this is from the article, quoting, by associated press reporter kimberly dozer two weeks ago outlining new obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political ap
stopper in all of this, wolf. >> thank you very much, barbara starr at pentagon. >>> up next here in "the situation room," a feud involving the actor alec baldwin and a new york post photographer. there's different versions about what happened. that's coming up next. the ones with the strong shoulder to lean on, the ones we're named after, and the ones named after us. it takes all kinds of good to make a family. at new york life, everything we do is to help you keep good going. music: "make someone happy" music: "make someone happy" ♪it's so important to make someone happy.♪ it's so important to make meone happy.♪ ♪make just one someone happy ♪and you will be happy too. then you're going to love this. right now they're only $14.95! wow-a grt deal just got a whole lot better. hurry. $14.95 won't last. >>> here's a look at this hour's hot shots. in new york, thousands line the streets to mark the year of the snake at the festival last sunday. >>> in bali, a beautiful sunset over the water. >>> in california, paragliders come in for a landing over the beach. send in your photos to
that the pentagon is preparing for furloughs even as obama hammers republicans on the sequester, he's reaching out on immigration. he placed calls to marco rubio, and john mccain -- >> they are sticking their necks out on this issue. what is frustrating for them, which you saw expressed in some of the things rubio said and paul ryan has said in the last couple of days, if they are going to stick their necks outs, they want to feel they have a partner with the white house. >> joining me right now is democratic congressman eric shifz zer. let's dive in to bring everybody up to speed on where we stand with nine days out on the quester. interesting with the piece out by john boehner, carney has tweeted out, speaker boehner is rewriting history in the op-ed for getting he said i got 98% of what i wanted when he and 173 house rs voted for the sequester. are you surprised by the game of chicken being played in washington, d.c., especially when it comes to the amount of cuts that are coming on march 1st? >> i wish i could say i'm surprised but we've seen enough over the last year and a half not to be surp
drastic. why wait until today to make these announcements? do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. that was october 2011. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could.
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
knife in the drawer at the pentagon. that's the job description. he's not going to the department of the interior. in terms of whether or not republicans will vote to confirm him, democrats need to hold together and get five republicans to confirm him and he should be able to become the next secretary of defense. there are grumblings among republican senators that they may consider putting a hold on his information to extracts more answers from the administration on the issue of benghazi. that this could be leverage to get to the bottom of that debacle and understanding better the administration's timeline, position, since they didn't get straight answers from former secretary of state hillary clinton. >> yeah. >> i think if they do that, it would be a big political mistake. the perception would be very negative for the republicans. >> any single senator can put a hold a nomination. it's been done before. in terms of voting down the nomination, that hasn't happened to a senator since john tower. i don't see that happening. >> let's talk immigration and gun control. both were big t
washington post" that we needed to reduce dod as a reason to improve efficiency within the pentagon. that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is about readiness. which is absolutely true. if you talk about the lawyers that work as defense contractors, they believe that they will have a field day. we have even had testimony last year that the legal household emanating from sequestration making up a lot of the savings. but beyond that, as senator ayotte and senator lindsey reference, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. but we do is try to develop capabilities to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can perform with fewer contingencies. this hurts us in the real world today. my final point is there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration savings for other more or other more targeted savings, so the same amount of money, and these domestic progra
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)